The Glade 4.0

I suppose it's too much to ask that you address the actual issues I mentioned.

Yes or no, and I'll tell you why it's pertinent to the issues at hand.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Rephrase your question to a yes-or-no question, then. "Why" is not a yes-or-no question.

He's got you there, Raph.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Do you desperately seek to be a victim because you feel it is the best way to follow Christ?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

No, because I don't seek to be a victim. I have been asked how homosexual marriage would make me sin (loosely paraphrased) and I gave an explanation of how. If an answer was not wanted, the question should not have been asked.

There, I answered your question. Would you care to address the issues I raised?

Except you making yourself a victim and its clear to everyone in this thread, except maybe Monte who has no clue what he's talking about again. You didn't raise any issues. You made some vague and distant connection between "homosexual marriage" and hate crime legislation used punitively against religious establishments for refusing such ceremonies. You might as well prcolaim (2pts on this reference are at stake) that Nazi's wielding flame-throwers will roam the earth on dinosaurs if the legislation goes through.

And for the record, I oppose any and all law regarding marriage, including but not limited to "gay marriage", tax laws, alimony and divorce law, etc.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I'll agree with you on the hate crime legislation, as I feel that's unfair no matter which special group feels entitled to it. Education I'd have to look into more and see examples or take it on a case by case basis. The gay marriage thing though, to argue it's a slippery slope for a larger gay agenda I'm bailing on.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

http://www.proudparenting.com/node/690

Vague?

Yeah, vague. There is nothing related about litigation where a church was sued for not holding a ceremony considered unsanctimonious by the said church and allowing gay marriage.

If you think there is, then every stabbing murder that ever occurred is equally culpable to the fact that knives are not illegal.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

nm

Yeah.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

So you thing if gay people get to have "marriages" that Christian churches (and Cynagouges, Mosques, Hindu temples etc. for that matter) are going to be forced to hold such ceremonies?

Even if that were the case (because of lawsuits) it still isn't an argument against gay marriages. That's a non sequitor fallacy. It would be the same as saying because some black men commit crimes, that it is the fault of the Emancipation Proclaimation.

Hmm, let me invoke BeryLogic for a sec: Some black men commit crime and wouldn't have been able to if they were still slaves. Then you are arguing that slavery is just. Good to know that's how you think.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

So you approve, and the fact that law is being used to infringe on the religious freedom of that church does not bother you?

No one approves that, or certainly I do not approve that since I speak for only myself. But to say that derives from gay marriage is a non-sequitor fallacy of epic quality. ****. Might even be legendary.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

They are being sued for refusing to allow a homosexual marriage to be performed on their property. How you cannot see the link is the only legendary thing here.

Not at all. They were not forced to perform the ceremony. They are being sued for discrimination on sexual orientation basis on not allowing the use of a campground facility. They were not asking anyone to sin or go against their religious orientation.

Besides, lesbians aren't sinful. Just homosexual males.

We get it though. You fear and hate fags. Its ok to hate. Really. It is.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You, like the gay couple suing, confuse their "right" to "gay married" with their "right to force others to gay marry them". The latter of which is not a right.

You can support the former without the latter and be morally consistent. I have a right to purchase a liver transplant from a willing donor and have it put in by a willing medical facility. I do not have the right to force anyone to facilitate these needs. You are saying if I get the former right, I get the latter.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Without naming names, to those of you on Mus's side of this issue: Please never tell me again that you want an honest reasonable discussion of the issues. It's a bald-faced lie for many of you, and I have my doubts about the rest of you. Sorry if some of you feel this is a broad brush, but it's been demonstrated by this thread. Lie to yourselves if you must, but don't bother lying to me.

Your questions were answered. You don't like the answers because they give you no room to make the fallacious argument that follows. You have little interest in what a government should do; you have a vested interest in government conforming to your personal interpretation of Christine doctrine. This is an established fact.What agenda? Are you seriously suggesting there is some global anti-Christian conspiracy?Kindly post examples with all relevant details. Every instance I can recall had nothing to do with being Christian and everything to do with violating explicit anti-establishment laws and separation doctrines; at least, that's the case barring extraordinary circumstances like Muslim controlled areas of Serbia during active civil war.
Just become someone brings a suit does not mean that the plaintiff gains the end they seek. People can sue for just about any perceived injustice or harm. The problem with your example, however, lies in the fact that no court would find hard or discrimination. Perhaps, I should sue you for proselytizing on Dashel's and Mookhow's privately administered forum where we are allowed to congregate and discuss by their will alone. Never mind the fact that I CHOOSE to visit this website, obviously those two are endorsing your speech.Law suits are civil matters. And obeying their conscience before God will have no negative moral or legal consequences in their world view. They will receive publicity from the foolish and pointless actions of other individuals.Except, since the choice available to you, as with all other Americans, is already established, the moral and Christian choice is to seek an alternative to public school. Your are not entitled to an education for your children; nor, for that matter, are you entitled to a Christian education for you children. Your reluctance to exercise the Christian decision in this matter is not my problem nor is it the government's problem. You are not being forced to sin; you are refusing to choose and blaming someone else for the failure of your conviction.Because it's only about Christians? The government is not forcing you to make a choice. The choice arrives as consequence of another choice in your life: the choice to be Christian. If you CHOOSE to believe in Beryllin's Christianity, then you CHOOSE to consequences of that choice. Our government has a responsibility to the Atheists, the Agnostics, the Apostates, the Heretics, the Muslims, the Jews, the Shinto, the Hindu, the Buddhists, the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Evangelical, the Baptist, the pretty much everyone. Your "Christianity" does not afford you special exemption from the neutrality and secular decision making of the government. And if you think it does, then you should expatriate to somewhere else, because precisely the same laws you think are oppressing you protect you from everyone else who wants it their way and no one else's.

Your questions were answered; I am sorry and offended you cannot abide the fact that Beryllin's Christianity is not the one true way of a free and equal society. Maybe I should sue you for exposing me such prideful avarice ...

_________________

Not that my motives or feelings about your arguments matter one whit in the first place, but this is wishful thinking on your part. I certainly don't fear any arguments you're willing to make; I just want you to step up and make them. I'm happy to engage you in debate and discussion on any argument you present. However, based on past experience, I am no longer willing to engage you in shoehorning my unqualified answers to contextless questions into the false perception of concession.


To speak to the substance of this, I would need to review the specific cases involved. Maybe that's an accurate characterization of these cases, and maybe it isn't. But it isn't relevant anyway. We're not debating the merits of Canadian or European hate-crime legislation, we're debating the merits of legalized gay marriage. This is merely a slippery slope fallacy unless you can prove an inevitable causal link between the legalization of gay marriage and the specific hate-crime laws which were involved in those cases.


Fun fact -- the weddings performed in a church confer no legal or monetary benefit to the participants. In the absence of a substantive, actionable harm to the complainant, there is no legal standing for criminal or civil action. Presently, many churches bar women from being pastors/priests/etc., and they haven't been subject to hate crime legislation because of it. A church refusing to perform a ceremony for a gay marriage would be no different.


See "slippery slope" above. Or rather, this is an unconnected issue. Public schools could teach that homosexuality is moral whether or not gay marriage is legal, so there is no causal link here.


You said it yourself -- you have a choice. This is not the same as the government forcing you to commit a sin. Moreover:


You're going to need to back up this assertion. Raising your children "in the way they should go" is not equivalent to never letting them even be merely exposed to a contrary teaching. In the first place, you can't reasonably be expected to control or even anticipate what other people are going to say around your children. Secondly, I frankly question the wisdom of sequestering your children rather than teaching them to resist the false teachings that they will inevitably encounter in life.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Well he is forced to pay the taxes for the public school though. I say that gives him the right to ***** at least. I know I'll be critical of my kids public school if I feel it's warranted. *grumbles about high property taxes in NJ*

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Apples and oranges. Our children may see the town drunk and interact with him/her, but that's vastly different than sending our children to him/her to get an education.

FYI, you should get a different analogy, as the private sale of human organs is illegal.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Under Unconstitutional laws that vainly try to stop trafficking of human organs. Although, when you are paying for the procedure (and really, the procedure to remove the donor's organ which gets rolled into your costs), you are effectively paying for the organ too.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones